Rare Earth Elements Profile

sustainability
Article
Prediction of the Heights of the Water-Conducting
Fracture Zone in the Overlying Strata of Shortwall
Block Mining Beneath Aquifers in Western China
Yun Zhang 1, *, Shenggen Cao 1, *, Rui Gao 1 ID
, Shuai Guo 2 and Lixin Lan 1
1 State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources & Safe Mining, School of Mines, China University of Mining &
Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China; cumtgaorui@163.com (R.G.); cumtlanlixin@163.com (L.L.)
2 State Key Laboratory for Geomechanics & Deep Underground Engineering, China University of Mining &
Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China; cumtgsh@163.com
* Correspondence: zhangyun@cumt.edu.cn (Y.Z.); yun11300@126.com (S.C.)

Received: 24 April 2018; Accepted: 15 May 2018; Published: 18 May 2018
Abstract: Longwall mining leaves pillars and irregular blocks of coal behind in its aftermath.
In this study, a shortwall block mining (SBM) technique for recovering these coal resources has
been proposed. A mechanical analysis model for calculating the heights of the water-conducting
fracture zone (HWFZ) in overlying strata of SBM was established based on the theory of beams
on elastic foundations. Using this model and the data acquired from a working face in the
experimental area, a height of 50.30 m was calculated for HWFZ corresponding to this working face.
This observation indicates that the equation for predicting HWFZ in working faces specified by the
Hydrogeological Procedures for Mines (HPM) standard is not suitable for application in SBM. For this
reason, the Universal Distinct Element Code (UDEC) modeling program was used to analyze the
developmental behavior of the water-conducting fracture zone under various determining factors in
SBM. The UDEC simulations indicated that the HWFZ increase linearly with an increase in mining
height, decrease linearly with an increase in the width of the protective coal pillars, and increase
logarithmically with block length. A nonlinear regression analysis of HWFZ was performed using the
SPSS software suite, from which a model for predicting HWFZ in SBM was constructed. This model
predicted that the HWFZ was 52.58 m in the experimental area, while field measurements yielded
HWFZ values varying from 47.98 to 50.06 m, which was basically consistent with the results of the
prediction model and the mechanical model, thus confirming the accuracy of the mechanical model
and the reliability of the regression model. The results of this study will provide critical practical
references for the enhancement of coal recovery rates in mining areas and enhance theories on aquifer
protection during mining operations.
Keywords: water protection; shortwall block mining (SBM); heights of water-conducting fracture
zone (HWFZ); beams on elastic foundations; predictive model
1. Introduction
The focal point for coal mining in China has shifted from eastern China to western China
owing to massive coal reserves in the west. The coal reserves in these regions generally occur as
shallow-lying coal seams buried at depths ranging from 100 to 200 m, with simple geological structures
and high-quality coal. The mining technologies in these regions are also highly advanced [1–4].
However, western China is a semi-arid region with scarce water resources, sparse vegetation,
and fragile ecological environments. In recent years, an increase in the number of mines and large-scale
high-intensity mining in western China has resulted in significant losses of water resources and
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1636; doi:10.3390/su10051636 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1636 2 of 20
an exacerbation of desertification [5–10] (see Figure 1 [11]). Furthermore, significant quantities of

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 19
coal have been left unmined in the form of coal pillars and irregular coal blocks [12–14]. The loss
Figure 1 [11]).
of water resources Furthermore,
and the waste significant
of coalquantities
resourcesof coal
nothave beendisturb
only left unmined
theinproduction,
the form of coallife
pillars
of the local
and irregular coal blocks [12–14]. The loss of water resources and the waste of coal resources not only
people, and social stability, but also bring serious troubles to the sustainable development strategy of
disturb the production, life of the local people, and social stability, but also bring serious troubles to the
the government.
sustainable development strategy of the government.
North
Sparse vegetation
Stream betrunking
Sinkiang
Gansu Inner Monglia
Coal Resources Ningxia

Provincial Capital
Main City
Shaanxi
180km
Legend
Surface fissure
Desertification of land
Figure 1. Distribution of coal resources in the mining areas of western China and the ecological issues
Figure 1. Distribution of coal resources in the mining areas of western China and the ecological issues
caused by mining operations.
caused by mining operations.
To address the issue of residual and discarded coal resources, this study proposes their recovery
using the shortwall block mining (SBM) technique. The SBM technique is used to recover coal resources
To address the issue of residual and discarded coal resources, this study proposes their recovery
that are not suitable for extraction via longwall mining, and to reduce the damage range of overlying strata
using the byshortwall
retaining theblock mining
protective (SBM)
coal pillars. technique.
Compared The SBM
to conventional room technique
mining, thisis used to
technique hasrecover
an coal
resources that are not suitable for extraction via longwall mining, and to reduce the damage range
enhanced resource recovery rate and integrates the excavation and mining of a working face, which
substantially
of overlying strata by increases its efficiency
retaining [14,15]. A few
the protective coal of the relevant
pillars. studies on SBM
Compared include the following:
to conventional room mining,
Zhou et al. [14,16] systematically studied the behavior of rock pressures during SBM based on the stress
this technique has an enhanced resource recovery rate and integrates the excavation and mining of
of coal pillars and roof movements. Cao et al. [15] analyzed the mechanism underlying abrupt instabilities
a workinginface, which
protective substantially
inter-block coal pillarsincreases
during SBMits fromefficiency [14,15].
the perspective of cuspA few of the
catastrophe relevant
theories. Miningstudies on
SBM include the following:
processes Zhou
will nonetheless et al.
result [14,16] systematically
in movements and damage in the studied thestrata,
overlying behavior of in
resulting rock
the pressures
during SBM formation
basedofon water-conducting
the stress offractures; furtherand
coal pillars losses in water
roof resources then
movements. Caooccur if the
et al. [15]water-
analyzed the
conducting fractures develop and come into contact with aquifers or water-rich areas on the surface [17–
mechanism underlying abrupt instabilities in protective inter-block coal pillars during SBM from
23]. However, there are very few theoretical studies on the developmental behavior of the water-
the perspective of cusp
conducting catastrophe
fracture zone that are theories. Mining
caused by SBM. Hence, processes will nonetheless
there is an urgent result
need to investigate this in movements
issue.
and damage in the overlying strata, resulting in the formation of water-conducting fractures; further
The predictive equation specified by the Hydrogeological Procedures for Mines (HPM) [24] standard is widely
used toresources
losses in water calculate thethen
heights of theifwater-conducting
occur fracture zonefractures
the water-conducting (HWFZ) caused
develop by mining
and processes.
come into contact
Nonetheless, the unique layout of SBM operations necessitates further investigation to clarify whether the
with aquifers or water-rich areas on the surface [17–23]. However, there are very few theoretical
HPM standard’s empirical equation is appropriate for describing these cases.
studies on the Thedevelopmental
objective of thebehavior
study is to of the water-conducting
predict HWFZ in SBM. Basedfracture zone that are
on the characteristics of the caused
SBM by SBM.
Hence, there is an
process, theurgent need to
present authors investigate
have put forwardthis issue.that
the factors The predictive
determine HWFZ equation specified
and constructed a by the
mechanical
Hydrogeological analysisfor
Procedures model
Mines for (HPM)
calculating
[24]HWFZ causedisbywidely
standard SBM byused takingtointo consideration
calculate the
the heights of the
damage characteristics of the overlying strata. This model was then used to evaluate the applicability
water-conducting fracture zone (HWFZ) caused by mining processes. Nonetheless, the unique layout
of the HPM standard’s predictive equation. An investigation was performed on the developmental
of SBM operations
behavior ofnecessitates furtherfracture
the water-conducting investigation
zone in SBM to clarify
using thewhether
Universal the HPMElement
Distinct standard’s Code empirical
equation is appropriate for describing these cases.
The objective of the study is to predict HWFZ in SBM. Based on the characteristics of the SBM
process, the present authors have put forward the factors that determine HWFZ and constructed a
mechanical analysis model for calculating HWFZ caused by SBM by taking into consideration the
damage characteristics of the overlying strata. This model was then used to evaluate the applicability
of the HPM standard’s predictive equation. An investigation was performed on the developmental
behavior of the water-conducting fracture zone in SBM using the Universal Distinct Element Code
(UDEC) numerical modeling program. Multiple nonlinear regression analysis was used to fit the
results of the simulations and derive a model for predicting HWFZ in SBM. Field verifications of this
model were then performed. The observations of this research are likely to play a highly critical role in
the recovery
(UDEC) of numerical
coal resources, theprogram.
modeling enhancement of nonlinear
Multiple water resource protection
regression analysis measures during
was used to fit the mining
operations, and the protection of ecological environments.
model were then performed. The observations of this research are likely to play a highly critical role
in Sustainability
2. Engineering
the recovery 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Background and Shortwall
of coal resources, Block Mining
the enhancement (SBM)
of water protection measures3 during
Process
resource of 19
mining operations, and the protection of ecological environments.

(UDEC) numerical modeling program. Multiple nonlinear regression analysis was used to fit the
2.1. Engineering Background
2. Engineering Background and Shortwall Block Mining (SBM) Process
model were then performed. The observations of this research are likely to play a highly critical role
The experimental area of SBM in Inner Mongolia is located in Ordos City, the surface of the area
in the recovery of coal resources, the enhancement of water resource protection measures during
2.1. Engineering
is covered with eolian Background
sand, and the surface riversenvironments.
and lakes do not exist in the surrounding area.
mining operations, and the protection of ecological
With seriousThe soil erosion, sparse
experimental area ofvegetation,
SBM in Inner and a fragile
Mongolia ecological
is located in Ordos environment,
City, the surface there
of theisarea
an aquifer
2. Engineering
in the underground
is covered withaboveBackground
eolian the
sand, red and
and Shortwall
clay,
the and
surface Block
the area
riversMining
belongs
and (SBM)
lakes doProcess
to the
not typical semi-arid
exist in the surroundingand semi-desert
area.
climate,With
which serious soil erosion,
displays
2.1. Engineering strongsparse
Background
vegetation,
seasonality. The and a fragile ecological
experimental area environment,
of SBM has an there is an
area 32,400.00 m2
ofaquifer
in the underground above the red clay, and the area belongs to the typical semi-arid and semi-desert
and 93,000.00 t of estimated recoverable coal reserves. The working face mainly extracts coal from the
climate,The experimental
which area of seasonality.
displays strong SBM in InnerTheMongolia is located
experimental in Ordos
area of SBM City,
hasthe
ansurface
area ofof the area m2
32,400.00
#3 coal seam, which
andis 93,000.00
covered with is a flat-lying
eolian sand,
t of estimated
coal seam
and the surface
recoverable
with a simple
rivers and
coal reserves. Thelakesand stable
do notface
working existstructure and
in theextracts
mainly surroundingrelatively
area.the
coal from
minute
variations in thickness.
#3 With
coal seriouswhich
seam, Its
is aaverage
soil erosion, sparseburial
flat-lying depth
vegetation,
coal seam and is
with 110.00
aafragile
simple m, stable
andenvironment,
ecological
and its thickness
structure isisapproximately
there
and an aquifer
relatively minute 4 m.
in the
the underground
The roofvariations
of coal seam is
in thickness. above the red clay,
composed
Its average and
(from
burial the
thearea
depth belongs
isbottom
110.00 totoand
m, the its
the typical
top) ofsemi-arid and semi-desert
medium-grained
thickness is approximately sandstones,
4 m.
The climate,
roof ofwhich displays
the coal seam strong seasonality.
is composed (from Thetheexperimental
bottom areatop)
to and
the of SBM has an area of 32,400.00
of medium-grained m2
sandstones,
siltstone, mudstone, fine sandstone, Hipparion red clay, drift sand. An aquifer lies above the
and 93,000.00 t of estimated recoverable coal reserves. The working face mainly extracts coal from the
siltstone,
red clay stratum mudstone, fine
at approximately sandstone,80.00Hipparion red clay, and drift sand. An aquifer lies above the red
#3 coal seam, which is a flat-lying coalm from
seam withthe coal seam;
a simple and stable loss of groundwater
structure and relativelyisminute
highly likely if
clay stratum at approximately 80.00 m from the coal seam; loss of groundwater is highly likely if the
the water-conducting fractures
variations in thickness. in the burial
Its average overlying
depth is strata
110.00reach
m, andthe aquifer.isThe
its thickness columnar
approximately pattern and
4 m.
water-conducting fractures in the overlying strata reach the aquifer. The columnar pattern and
mechanical The roof of the coal
parameters of seam
the is composed
mining area (from
are the bottom tointhe
presented top) of2.
Figure medium-grained sandstones,
mechanical parameters of the mining area are presented in Figure 2.
siltstone, mudstone, fine sandstone, Hipparion red clay, and drift sand. An aquifer lies above the red
clay stratum at approximately 80.00 m from the coal seam; loss of groundwater is highly likely if the
Columnar Burial depth Thickness Density Elastic modulus Tensile strength Internal friction angle Cohesive force Poisson's ratio
water-conducting
pattern Lithology fractures
d/m inh/mthe overlying
γ/kg.m-3 strata
E/GPa reach the σ/MPaaquifer. The β/o columnar c/Mpapattern and μ
mechanical parameters
Drift-sand of the mining
30.00 30.00 area are presented
1,870.00 — in—Figure 2. — — —
Aquifer 30.00 — — — — — — —
Red clay 40.10 10.10 1,750.00 0.02 0.02 30.20 0.10 0.31
Columnar Burial depth Thickness Density Elastic modulus Tensile strength Internal friction angle Cohesive force Poisson's ratio
Lithology
pattern Siltstone 60.10d/m 20.00 2,400.00
γ/kg.m-3 26.60 10.60 38.00β/o 1.70 0.25
h/m E/GPa σ/MPa c/Mpa μ
Fine sandstone 71.10 11.00 2.375.00 23.30 7.90 37.00 1.90 0.22
Drift-sand 30.00 30.00 1,870.00 — — — — —
Mudstone 79.00
30.00 7.90 2,415.00 21.60 1.20 35.00 0.90 0.25
Aquifer — — — — — — —
96.00 17.00 2,400.00 5.20 38.50
28.80 0.101.50 0.31 0.25
Siltstone
Red clay 40.10 10.10 1,750.00 0.02 0.02 30.20
Medium sandstone
Siltstone 110.40
60.10 14.40
20.00 2,350.00
2,400.00 16.90
26.60 5.10
10.60 41.00
38.00 1.701.40 0.25 0.28
#3 Coal Seam
Fine sandstone 114.40
71.10 4.00
11.00 1,400.00
2.375.00 14.10
23.30 2.50
7.90 38.00
37.00 1.901.20 0.22 0.33
Medium sandstone
Mudstone 141.40
79.00 27.00
7.90 2,350.00
2,415.00 24.80
21.60 3.60
1.20 39.00
35.00 0.901.60 0.25 0.28
Siltstone 96.00 17.00 2,400.00 28.80 5.20 38.50 1.50 0.25
Figure Medium sandstone

2. Columnar 110.40
pattern of14.40 2,350.00 16.90
the coal-bearing rocks and5.10 41.00and mechanical
their physical 1.40 0.28
properties.
Figure 2. Columnar
#3 Coal Seampattern
114.40of the coal-bearing
4.00 rocks and
1,400.00 14.10 2.50their physical
38.00 and mechanical
1.20 0.33 properties.
Medium sandstone 141.40 27.00 2,350.00 24.80 3.60 39.00 1.60 0.28
Coal recovery was performed in two blocks—each with a mining height of 4.00 m—in the
Figure 2.
experimental Columnar
area. The pattern of
length of the coal-bearing
each block rocks
was and their physical
approximately and mechanical properties.
Coal recovery was performed in two blocks—each with a70.00 m, and
mining the
height protective
of 4.00 coal
m—in the
pillars between
experimental area. the blocks
The length were approximately 10.00 m wide. The design of the working face is
Coal recovery was of each block
performed in twowas approximately
blocks—each with a 70.00
miningm, and of
height the4.00
protective
m—in thecoal pillars
illustrated in Figure 3.
between the blocks were
experimental area.approximately 10.00
The length of each blockmwas
wide. The design
approximately of m,
70.00 theand
working face iscoal
the protective illustrated in
Figure 3. pillars between the blocks were approximately 10.00 m wide. The design of the working face is
illustrated in Figure 3. 50m Legend
borehole Block length
Legend 50m
70.00m 70.00m
borehole Block length10.00m
35.00m 80.00m Protection coal pillar
Inner Mongolia 70.00m 70.00m
D1 D2
10.00m
Inner Mongolia
SBM80.00m
35.00m workingProtection
face coal pillar
D1 D2
Huhehot City
SBM working face
Ordos City
g face
Experimental
Huhehot City workin
Coal Mine 62205
Ordos City
(a)Experimental g face
workin(b)
Coal Mine 62205
Figure 3. Location and layout
(a) of the working face of the experimental area
(b) of shortwall block mining
(SBM). (a) Location of experimental area of SBM; (b) Layout of the working face for SBM.
Figure 3. Location and layout of the working face of the experimental area of shortwall block mining
Figure 3. Location and layout
(SBM). (a) Location of the working
of experimental face(b)
area of SBM; of Layout
the experimental
of the workingarea of SBM.
face for shortwall block mining
(SBM). (a) Location of experimental area of SBM; (b) Layout of the working face for SBM.
2.2. SBM Processes

The main purpose of the SBM technique is to recover coal resources that are not suitable for
2.2. SBM Processes
extraction via longwall mining. In the working face for SBM, bolts, mobile roof supports, and preserved
coal pillarsThe
aremain
usedpurpose of thethe
to support SBM technique
roof is to recover
[14]. These coal resources
techniques integratethat are not suitable
excavation for
and mining
extraction via longwall mining. In the working face for SBM, bolts, mobile roof supports,
operations, are highly automated and flexible, require minimal upfront investment, and can be rapidly and
preserved
deployed, whichcoal pillars are used
substantially to support
enhances the roof [14].
the recovery rate These techniques integrate excavation and
of a mine.
mining operations, are highly automated and flexible, require minimal upfront investment, and can
(1) The technical
be rapidly systemwhich
deployed, for SBM
substantially enhances the recovery rate of a mine.
A(1) The technical

classic technicalsystem
system forfor
SBM SBM and the layout of the working face is illustrated in Figure 4.
The recoveredA classic technical system forthe
coal is transported in SBM following order:ofworking
and the layout faceface
the working of is
SBM → haulage
illustrated roadway
in Figure 4.
of SBMThe→recovered
main haulage
coal isroadway
transported →inmain shaft; theorder:
the following material transport
working face ofsystem
SBM →has following
haulage order:
roadway
auxiliary shaft→→main
of SBM track haulage
haulage roadway
roadway → track
→ main haulage
shaft; roadway
the material of SBM
transport → working
system face. A
has following mining
order:
auxiliary shaft → track haulage roadway → track haulage roadway of SBM →
block is formed through the installation of four branch roadways and three connecting roadways,working face. A mining
block is formed
and a protective through
coal pillar the between
is set installation of four
each block.branch roadways
The coal pillarsand threeblock
in each connecting roadways,from
are recovered
and a protective coal pillar is set between each block. The coal pillars in each
the top to the bottom, in retreating fashion. Based on the stability of the roof, each block was block are recovered
designed
from the top to the bottom, in retreating fashion. Based on the stability of the roof, each block was
with an approximate length of 70.00 m, while the protective pillars between the blocks had a width of
designed with an approximate length of 70.00 m, while the protective pillars between the blocks had
approximately 10.00 m.
a width of approximately 10.00 m.
Branch Protective
roadway coal pillar
Block mining tecnology
Connected Block 2 Block 1 Recovery Haulage roadway Track haulage
of block mining roadway of block mining
roadway sequence
Track haulage roadway Recovery of
of block mining coal pillar
Working face
Haulage roadway Coal transport systerm
of block mining Matertial transport systerm
Mian haulage roadway
Track haulage roadway
Figure 4. Technical system of SBM and the layout of the working face.
Figure 4. Technical system of SBM and the layout of the working face.
(2) Main Equipment and Working Face Parameters
(2) Main Equipment and Working Face Parameters
The most critical pieces of equipment for SBM include mobile roof supports and continuous
The mostDuring
miners. thepieces
critical recovery
of of coal pillars,for
equipment a temporary
SBM includecoal pillar is left
mobile roofbetween eachand
supports mining cave,
continuous
miners. During the recovery of coal pillars, a temporary coal pillar is left between each miningtocave,
which acts in unison with four mobile roof supports to ensure that the continuous miners are able
whichsafely complete their coal cutting and loading processes. The layout of the mobile roof supports is
acts in unison with four mobile roof supports to ensure that the continuous miners are able
displayed in Figure 5, which shows that the supports were separated into two groups (Supports 1
to safely complete their coal cutting and loading processes. The layout of the mobile roof supports
and 2 formed one group, while Supports 3 and 4 formed another group), with one group placed in
is displayed in Figure 5, which shows that the supports were separated into two groups (Supports 1
the branch roadways and the other group placed in the connecting roadways between two adjacent
and 2 formed one group,
branch roadways. Thewhile
widthSupports 3 and
of the branch and4 connecting
formed another group),
roadways with
was 5.00 m.one
Thegroup
length placed
of the in
the branch
miningroadways
caves wasandlessthe other
than 11 m,group
while placed in the
their width connecting
was 3.30 m, androadways betweenthe
the angle between two adjacent
mining
branchcave
roadways.
and branch The width of
roadways theapproximately
was branch and connecting roadways
45°, with a 0.5–1.5 m gap was 5.00 m.each
left between Thecut
length of the
to form
coal pillars between the mining caves.
mining caves was less than 11 m, while their width was 3.30 m, and the angle between the mining
cave and branch roadways was approximately 45◦ , with a 0.5–1.5 m gap left between each cut to form
coal pillars between the mining caves.
2
1
1
①
2
1
Mining cave ②
2
1
③
2
1
④
2
⑤
1
⑥
3 4
3 4
3 4
Temporary
coal pillar
Branch Branch Branch Branch
roadway 4 roadway 3 roadway 2 roadway 1
Figure 5. Coal
Coal pillar
pillar recovery
recovery process and the main equipment involved.
3.
3. Mechanistic
Mechanistic Analysis
Analysis of
of the
the Development
Development of
of Water-Conducting Fracture Zone
Water-Conducting Fracture Zone during
during SBM
SBM
It is imperative
It is imperativethatthatwater-conducting
water-conductingfractures
fracturesareare prevented
prevented from
from reaching
reaching an aquifer
an aquifer when when
coal
coal is mined from deposits lying beneath aquifers. The most widely applied method
is mined from deposits lying beneath aquifers. The most widely applied method for predicting HWFZ for predicting
HWFZ
in China inisChina is the predictive
the predictive equation
equation given
given in in the standard,
the HPM HPM standard,but thisbutequation
this equation was derived
was derived from
from regression calculations based on limited field measurement data from mining
regression calculations based on limited field measurement data from mining done in China during done in China
during
the earlythe80early 80 s.SBM
s. Both Bothand
SBM and longwall
longwall mining mining use caving
use caving techniques
techniques to manage
to manage the roof,
the roof, and
and thus
thus display
display similar
similar behaviors
behaviors andand mechanisms
mechanisms in in their
their roof
roof fractures,ground
fractures, groundpressure,
pressure,and
and fractures
fractures
development
development [25]. Nonetheless, the predictive equation given in the HPM standard was based on
[25]. Nonetheless, the predictive equation given in the HPM standard was based on
measurements
measurements made made in in longwall
longwall mining,
mining, whereas
whereas thethe layout
layout of of the
the working
working face
face in
in SBM
SBM is is quite
quite
different from that
different from that of
of longwall
longwall mining.
mining. Therefore,
Therefore, further
further investigation
investigation is is required
required to elucidate
to elucidate
whether the HPM standard’s empirical equation based on longwall mining is
whether the HPM standard’s empirical equation based on longwall mining is applicable in SBM. applicable in SBM.
3.1. Characteristics of Overlying Strata Damage in SBM

(1) Conventional longwall caving methods
(1) Conventional longwall caving methods
In conventional mechanized coal mining, the immediate roof of mined-out areas collapses under
In conventional mechanized coal mining, the immediate roof of mined-out areas collapses under
the action of its own weight and that of the overlying strata as the working face progresses forward.
In turn, the main roof also collapses, ultimately causing fractures in key strata that subsequently
In turn, the main roof also collapses, ultimately causing fractures in key strata that subsequently result
result in surface subsidence. The coal mining processes in shallow-lying coal seams in western China
in surface subsidence. The coal mining processes in shallow-lying coal seams in western China in
in particular are likely to cause highly adverse “step” subsidence, which results in elastic damage
particular are likely to cause highly adverse “step” subsidence, which results in elastic damage over
over a wide area [26]. The characteristics of overlying strata displacements in conventional
a wide area [26]. The characteristics of overlying strata displacements in conventional mechanized
mechanized longwall mining are illustrated in Figure 6a.
longwall mining are illustrated in Figure 6a.
Surface
HWFZ
Longwall mining Coal seam

working face
(a)
In turn, the main roof also collapses, ultimately causing fractures in key strata that subsequently
result in surface subsidence. The coal mining processes in shallow-lying coal seams in western China
in particular are likely to cause highly adverse “step” subsidence, which results in elastic damage
over a wide
Sustainability 2018, area
10, 1636[26]. The characteristics of overlying strata displacements in conventional
6 of 20
mechanized longwall mining are illustrated in Figure 6a.
Surface
HWFZ
Longwall mining Coal seam

working face

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW (a) 6 of 19
Surface
Surface
HWFZ
HWFZ
Protective SBM working Coal seam
coal pillar SBM face
Protective working Coal seam
coal pillar face
(b)
(b)
Figure 6. Characteristics of the overlying strata in longwall mining and SBM. (a) Characteristics of
Figure 6. Characteristics of the overlying strata in longwall mining and SBM. (a) Characteristics of
Figure 6. Characteristics
overlying of the caused
strata displacements
displacements overlying strata in longwall
byconventional
conventional mining
longwall and methods;
caving SBM. (a) Characteristics of
overlying strata caused by longwall caving methods; (b)(b) Characteristics
Characteristics of
overlying strata
of overlying displacements
strata caused
displacements by
caused conventional longwall caving methods; (b) Characteristics
overlying strata displacements caused by by SBM.
SBM.
of overlying strata displacements caused by SBM.
(2) SBM
(2) SBM
(2) SBM
In the SBM process, protective coal pillars are preserved between adjacent blocks as the working
face In
Inthe
theSBM
SBMprocess,
progresses and protective
causes
process, caving coal
protective coalpillars
along are
arepreserved
the way.
pillars between
The coal pillars
preserved between adjacent
support theblocks
adjacent load ofas
blocks the
asthe working
theoverlying
working
face progresses
strata,
face and causes
which substantially
progresses caving
and causes reduces along
caving along the
the damage way. The coal
the way.inflicted
The coal pillars
onpillars support
the main
support the
roof the load
andload of
the of the overlying
overlying strata
the overlying
strata,
above which
strata, it, thussubstantially
which restricting thereduces
substantially the
the damage
development
reduces of theinflicted
damage on
on the
the main
water-conducting
inflicted roof
roof and
fracture
main zone.
and the overlying
The
the strata
characteristics
overlying strata
above it,
it, thus
thus restricting
of deformation
above the development
development
in rocks surrounding
restricting the SBMof of
arethe
the water-conducting
illustrated fracture
in Figurefracture
water-conducting 6b. zone.The
zone. Thecharacteristics
characteristics of
of deformation in rocks surrounding SBM are illustrated
deformation in rocks surrounding SBM are illustrated in Figure 6b. in Figure 6b.
3.2. Determining Factors of HWFZ in SBM
3.2.
3.2. Determining
DeterminingFactors
FactorsofofHWFZ
HWFZ in in SBM
SBM
The determining factors of HWFZ in SBM were obtained through comparisons based on the
The
The determining
determining
characteristics factors
factors
of overlying of
of HWFZ
strataHWFZ
damage in SBM
in and
SBMthewere
were obtained
obtained
layout through
through
of working comparisons
in SBM, asbased
comparisons
faces based on
on the
illustrated the
in
characteristics
characteristics of
of overlying
overlying strata
strata damage
damage
Figure 7. These factors include the following: and
and the
the layout
layout of
of working
working faces
faces in
in SBM,
SBM, as
as illustrated
illustrated in
in
Figure
Figure 7.7. These
Thesefactors
factors include
include thethe following:
following:
Surface
Mining Surface
depth
Mining
depth
Mining height
Mining height Width of the Length of block
of thepillars
Width coal
protective Length of block
protective coal pillars
Figure 7. Schematic of factors that determine HWFZ.
(1) Mining height
(1) Mining height
Mining height is one of the most critical factors that determine the range of damage in overlying
Mining height
strata [27]. After is one of
a volume ofthe
coalmost critical
has been factors that
recovered, thedetermine
surroundingthestresses
range ofofdamage
the goafinredistribute
overlying
strata [27]. After a volume of coal has been recovered, the surrounding stresses of the
themselves and locally induce concentrations of stress that result in bedding fractures. Varyinggoaf redistribute
themselves and in
mining heights locally induce face
the working concentrations of stress
results in varying that in
heights result in bedding
the “three zones”fractures. Varying
(caved, fractured,
(1) Mining height

Mining height is one of the most critical factors that determine the range of damage in overlying
strata [27]. After a volume of coal has been recovered, the surrounding stresses of the goaf redistribute
themselves and locally induce concentrations of stress that result in bedding fractures. Varying
mining heights in the working face results in varying heights in the “three zones” (caved, fractured,
and continuous zones) developed within the overlying strata [2,28,29]. Furthermore, the empirical
equation in the HPM standard for predicting HWFZ implies that mining height is the only factor that
determines HWFZ.
(2) Width of the protective coal pillars
The preservation of protective coal pillars plays a critical role in regulating overlying strata
movements and maintaining the stability of rocks surrounding a mine as these pillars bear the
combined rock load over the goafs and coal pillars [30]. Under certain conditions, the load capacity
of the coal pillars is determined by their dimensions; hence, the design of the protective pillars has a
substantial determining effect on the regulation of damage in the overlying strata and HWFZ.
(3) Length of the block
Similar to the mining height, the length of the block is one of the parameters of the working face
that determine HWFZ. This is reflected in the fact that the length of the excavation has a direct effect
on plastic damage, deformations, and stress redistributions in the overlying strata.
(4) Mining depth
Based on rock mechanics theories [31], ground stresses increase as the depth increases, and varying
coal mining depths result in varying levels of stress in the surrounding rocks of a working face.
Therefore, the mining depth also affects the range of overlying strata damage to a certain extent.
(5) Structural geology
Different geological structures not only directly affect the movement law of overlying strata,
but also the characteristics of surrounding rock stress distribution and the shape of ground subsidence
after the working face was mined out. The thickness, lithology, location, stability, etc., of each rock
stratum will lead to a different range of development of the water-conducting fracture zone.
It is not feasible to alter the mining depth and structural geology for a specified geological setting.
Therefore, regulation of the water-conducting fracture zone is to be accomplished through the rational
design of key technical parameters such as mining height, block length, and width of protective coal
pillars, in order to ensure that losses in water resources do not occur as a result of the growth of
water-conducting fractures.
3.3. The Construction of a Mechanical Model and the Analysis of Bending Deformations
(1) Construction of a mechanical model for calculating HWFZ

HWFZ were determined from the height of the failed strata above the working face based on the
factors that determine HWFZ in SBM. Here, an arbitrary stratum above the coal seam (denoted as the
ith stratum) is considered as the subject of study, and the loads above this stratum are simplified as
q1 (i), q2 (i), and q3 (i), as illustrated in Figure 8. Suppose that the thicknesses of the strata above the coal
seam are h1 , h2 , h3 , ..., hm , the total thickness of the rock composed of i strata lying above the coal seam
is Hi = ∑ hk (i = 1, 2, 3, · · · , m).
HWFZ were determined from the height of the failed strata above the working face based on the
factors that determine HWFZ in SBM. Here, an arbitrary stratum above the coal seam (denoted as the
ith stratum) is considered as the subject of study, and the loads above this stratum are simplified as
q1(i), q2(i), and q3(i), as illustrated in Figure 8. Suppose that the thicknesses of the strata above the coal
seam are h1, h2, h3, ..., hm, the total thickness of the rock composed of i strata lying above the coal seam
Hi   hk (i  1, 2,3, , m)
is .
q3(i) q3(i) q3(i)

q1(i) q1(i)
q2(i) q2(i) q2(i) q2(i)
hi i th stratum
…… ……
Hi
3 th stratum
h2 h3
2 th stratum
1 th stratum
h1
Coal seam Protective coal pillar Goaf
Figure 8. Schematic of the basic environmental stresses in SBM.

Figure 8. Schematic of the basic environmental stresses in SBM.
Figure 8 shows that the actions of the strata and coal beneath the ith stratum on rock beams of
Figure
the 8 shows
ith stratum can that the actions
be simplified ofWinkler’s
using the stratamodel
and coal beneath
for elastic the ith stratum
foundations on location
[32,33]. The rock beamsof of
the ith
thestratum
starting can
cut, be
O, was set as theusing
simplified origin, the direction
Winkler’s of the
model working
for elasticface’s progression
foundations was set
[32,33]. Theas location
the
of thex-axis,
starting andcut,
the O,
direction
was setofasthethedisplacement function of
origin, the direction wi(x)
thewas set as face’s
working the y-axis. The resulting
progression was set as
mechanical model for calculating HWFZ is illustrated in Figurei 9. The
the x-axis, and the direction of the displacement function w (x) was set as the y-axis. Thelength of each block is l1, resulting
and
Sustainability
mechanical model 2018,for
10, xcalculating
FOR PEER REVIEW
HWFZ is illustrated in Figure 9. The length of each block is l81of 19 the
, and
width of the protective pillars between each block is l2 . Here, the effects of factors such as the coal
the width of the protective pillars between each block is l2. Here, the effects of factors such as the coal
pillars between the mining caves in the mine and time have not been considered.
pillars between the mining caves in the mine and time have not been considered.
q3(i) q3(i) q3(i) q3(i)

q1(i) q2(i) q2(i) q2(i) q2(i) q2(i) q1(i)
x
O
ki ki ki ki
l2 l2 l2 l2
l1 l1 l1
wi(x)
Figure 9. Mechanical model for an arbitrary stratum in SBM.

Figure 9. Mechanical model for an arbitrary stratum in SBM.
In particular, the uniformly distributed load that an arbitrary stratum above the rock beams
In particular,
bears the uniformly
may be expressed as: distributed load that an arbitrary stratum above the rock beams bears
may be expressed as:  q1 (i)   (d  H i -1 ), load above coal seam

q (i)   (d ' H ), load above goaf (1)

 q1 (i )=2 γ(d − Hi−1i -1), load above coal seam

q (i )  j ( d  H ), load above
q2 (i )=3 γ(d0 − Hi−1i -1) , load above goafprotective coal pillar (1)
 q (i ) = jγ(d − H ), load above protective coal pillar

In this equation, γ3 is the bulk density i −1of the rocks, d is the burial depth, d’ is the potential caving
height, and j is the stress concentration coefficient. The elastic foundation coefficients, ki, of the coal
In
seamthisand
equation, is theabove
the (i-1)thγstrata bulk the
density
seam of
arethe rocks, das:
expressed is the burial depth, d’ is the potential caving
height, and j is the stress concentration coefficient. The elastic foundation coefficients, ki , of the coal
1 1 1 1 1 1
seam and the (i-1)th strata above the seam i
 are
 expressed
   as: (2)
k kc k1 k2 ki  2 ki 1
In this equation, kc is the 1elastic1 1

= foundation
+
1
+ coefficient
...+
1 of the coal
+
1 bodies, while k1, k2, k3, ..., ki-1
(2)
k i k k k k k
are the elastic foundation coefficients cof each1 stratum.
2 i −2 i −1
(2) this
In Analysis of bending
equation, deformations
kc is the elastic foundation coefficient of the coal bodies, while k1 , k2 , k3 , ..., ki-1
are the elastic foundation coefficients of each
Based on the theories of rock beams onstratum.
elastic foundations [34–36], the deflection wi(x) of rock
beams in the ith stratum of the mine and the loading on the rock beams should satisfy the fundamental
(2) Analysis of bending deformations
differential equations for the deflection curves of beams on a foundation, in which n is the number of
miningon
Based blocks. Hence, the
the theories ofdifferential
rock beams equations of the
on elastic deflection curves
foundations of rock
[34–36], thebeams wi (x) of rock
in an arbitrary
deflection
stratum
beams th
in the of
i the overlying
stratum strata
of the mineare:and the loading on the rock beams should satisfy the fundamental
differential equations for thed 4deflection
wi ( x) curves of beams on a foundation, in which n is the number of
 EI
1
4
 k i w1i ( x)  q1 (i ) ( x  0)
 dx
 d 4 w2i ( x)
 EI  q2 (i ) (0  x  l1 )
 dx 4
 d 4 w3i ( x) i i
 EI  k w3 ( x)  q3 (i ) (l1  x  l1  l2 )
 dx 4 (3)
mining blocks. Hence, the differential equations of the deflection curves of rock beams in an arbitrary
stratum of the overlying strata are:
d4 w i ( x )



 EI dx14 + ki w1i ( x ) = q1 (i ) ( x ≤ 0)
d4 w i ( x )

EI dx24 = q2 (i ) ( 0 ≤ x ≤ l1 )




d4 w i ( x )


EI dx34 + ki w3i ( x ) = q3 (i ) ( l1 ≤ x ≤ l1 + l2 )

(3)
 ······

 i (x)
 EI d4 w2n

((n − 1)(l1 + l2 ) ≤ x ≤ nl1 + (n − 1)l2 )


 dx 4 = q2 ( i )
i
d4 w2n

+1 ( x )

+ ki w2ni ( x > nl1 + (n − 1)l2 )

EI dx4 +1 ( x ) = q 1 ( i )
In these equations, EI is the flexural rigidity ofqa beam section, while n is the number of blocks.
k i
A characteristic coefficient is defined as α = 4 4EI , and the deflections of an arbitrary stratum
are introduced. This yields the equations for the deflection curves of each segment above the beams,
as illustrated below:

q (i )


 w1i ( x ) = eαx ( A1 cos αx + B1 sin αx ) + e−αx (C1 cos αx + D1 sin αx ) + 1ki (− l22 ≤ x ≤ 0)

q ( i ) x 4 3 2
A x B x
w2i ( x ) = 224EI + 26 + 22 + C2 x + D2




 ( 0 ≤ x ≤ l1 )
q (i )
w3 ( x ) = eαx ( A3 cos αx + B3 sin αx ) + e−αx (C3 cos αx + D3 sin αx ) + 3ki

 i
( l1 ≤ x ≤ l1 + l2 )
(4)


 ·········
 wi ( x ) = q2 (i) x4 + A2n x3 + B2n x2 + C x + D

((n − 1)(l1 + l2 ) ≤ x ≤ nl1 + (n − 1)l2 )


 2n 24EI 6 2 2n 2n
q1 ( i )

w2n+1 ( x ) = eαx ( A2n+1 cos αx + B2n+1 sin αx ) + e−αx (C2n+1 cos αx + D2n+1 sin αx ) +
 i

ki
( x > nl1 + (n − 1)l2 )
The foundation coefficient is related to the thickness of the coal seam by the following
equations [37]: (
k c = Ec /hc
(5)
k i = Ei /hi
Here, Ec is the elastic modulus of the coal bodies, Ei is the elastic modulus of an arbitrary stratum,
and hc is the mining height.
The boundary conditions of the beams are as follows:
(
θ1i (−∞) = 0 w1i (−∞) = 0
(6)
+1 (+ ∞ ) = 0 w2n+1 (+ ∞ ) = 0
i
θ2n i
Continuity condition: The deflections, bending moments, corner angles, and shear forces of the
coal pillars, stope, and coal seam are equivalent at their points of connection.
The introduction of boundary and continuity conditions yields the following parameters to
be solved: A1 , B1 , C1 , D1 , A2 , B2 , C2 , D2 , ..., A2n+1 , B2n+1 , C2n+1 , D2n+1 . With these parameters,
the equations for the roof’s bending and subsidence, wi (x), and the bending moment, Mi (x),
are obtained.
3.4. Calculating of HWFZ

The maximum tensile stress of a beam according to the theory of beams with rectangular
sections is:
6Mi
i max
σmax = (7)

h2i

In this equation, σi max is the maximum stress of an arbitrary stratum in the overlying strata, and
Mi max is the maximum bending moment in an arbitrary stratum of the overlying strata.
Based on the maximum normal stress theory, if a stratum fails, the following equation should
be satisfied:
i
σmax ≥ [σi ] (8)
In this equation, [σi ] is the tensile strength of an arbitrary stratum of the overlying strata.
The analysis here begins from the first stratum above the coal seam; if this stratum satisfies
Equation (7), the stratum will fail and water-conducting fractures will then occur. Then, the adjacent
upperSustainability
strata will continue
2018, to beREVIEW
10, x FOR PEER checked until the calculation is stopped when a stratum does
10 ofnot
19 fail.
HWFZ is then the sum of the thicknesses of the failed strata, and its value is:
upper strata will continue to be checked until the calculation is stopped when a stratum does not fail.
HWFZ is then the sum of the thicknesses
Hi = of
h1 the
+ hfailed + · · ·and
2 + h3strata, · · · its value is: (9)
100m
Hi  h1  h2  h3  (9)
The predictive equation H = 3.3n +3.8 + 5.1 in Appendix 7 of the HMP standard (m being the
mining height and n being the number 100ofm mined strata) yields an HWFZ of 75.50 m based on the
H  5.1
mechanicalTheparameters
predictive equation 3.3n  3.8
of the strata illustrated in in
Figure 2. The
Appendix 7 of calculation based(m
the HMP standard onbeing
mechanical
the
mining
theories, height and
however, n being
yields the number
an HWFZ of mined
of 50.30 strata)
m. These yields anindicate
outcomes HWFZ ofthat
75.50 mprediction
the based on theby the
HMPmechanical
standard’sparameters
predictiveofequation
the stratavaries
illustrated in Figure from
substantially 2. Thethe
calculation based
results of on mechanical
the analysis using the
theories,model.
mechanical however, yields
This an HWFZ
reveals of 50.30
that the m. These
empirical outcomes
equation indicate
in the HMPthat the prediction
standard by the in
is not effective
HMP standard’s predictive equation varies substantially from the results of the analysis using the
predicting HWFZ in SBM.
mechanical model. This reveals that the empirical equation in the HMP standard is not effective in
predicting
4. Methods forHWFZ in SBM.
Predicting HWFZ in SBM
4. Methods
4.1. Procedure forfor Predicting
Designing HWFZ that
a System in SBM
Predicts HWFZ in SBM
4.1.the
As Procedure
HMPfor Designing predictive
standard’s a System thatequations
Predicts HWFZ in SBM
are determined to be inaccurate in the prediction
of HWFZAsintheSBM, HMP standard’s predictive equations are determined to bebeen
a system for predicting HWFZ in SBM had established
inaccurate according to
in the prediction
the characteristics of the previously described SBM processes and the mechanical
of HWFZ in SBM, a system for predicting HWFZ in SBM had been established according to the analysis of the
developments pattern
characteristics of theof previously
the water-conducting
described SBM fracture zone.
processes andUDEC numericalanalysis
the mechanical simulations
of thewere
developments
performed based onpattern of the water-conducting
the geological characteristics of fracture zone.
an actual UDEC
mine andnumerical
its area ofsimulations weresingle
recovery, and
factorperformed basedperformed
analyses were on the geological characteristics
for determining of an
factors actual
such mine and
as mining its area
height, of recovery,
width and
of the protective
single factor analyses were performed for determining factors such as mining height,
pillar, and block length, to obtain HWFZ corresponding to varying sets of conditions. Finally, a multiplewidth of the
protective pillar, and block length, to obtain HWFZ corresponding to varying sets of conditions.
nonlinear regression analysis was used to complete the construction of the prediction model for HWFZ,
Finally, a multiple nonlinear regression analysis was used to complete the construction of the
and the procedure for its design is described in Figure 10.
prediction model for HWFZ, and the procedure for its design is described in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Design procedure for the predictive system for HWFZ in SBM.
Figure 10. Design procedure for the predictive system for HWFZ in SBM.
4.2.
4.2. Numerical
Numerical Simulation
Simulation Studies
Studies of
of HWFZ
HWFZ in
in SBM
SBM
The
The predictive
predictive equation
equation in in the
the HMP
HMP standard
standard was was derived
derived using
using empirical
empirical methods,
methods, in in which
which aa
limited set of field measurement data on HWFZ in working faces were analyzed.
limited set of field measurement data on HWFZ in working faces were analyzed. During this analysis, During this analysis,
the
theeffects
effectsof ofthethe
physical
physicaland mechanical
and mechanical properties of the overlying
properties strata on damage
of the overlying strata onanddamage
deformation
and
were not taken into consideration. The method for determination
deformation were not taken into consideration. The method for determination used in the used in the analysis, which was
analysis,
based
whichon was mechanical theories, was
based on mechanical conservative
theories, and not capable
was conservative and notof accurately calculatingcalculating
capable of accurately HWFZ in
rock
HWFZ layers that have
in rock layerssuffered damage,
that have anddamage,
suffered the mechanistic
and themodel could not
mechanistic calculate
model couldHWFZ caused
not calculate
by the local failure of a stratum. The UDEC analytical software uses the
HWFZ caused by the local failure of a stratum. The UDEC analytical software uses the discrete discrete element method based
on rock mechanical theories, as well as the lithology and parameters of the
element method based on rock mechanical theories, as well as the lithology and parameters of the various strata; this method
is thus capable
various of simulating
strata; this method is the thusrange
capableof plastic damagethe
of simulating in strata
range with a substantially
of plastic damage in high stratalevel
withofa
accuracy and overcoming the deficiencies of the HMP standard’s predictive
substantially high level of accuracy and overcoming the deficiencies of the HMP standard’s equation and mechanical
calculation [38,39]. and mechanical calculation [38,39].
predictive equation
Based
Based on on the
the geological
geologicalconditions
conditionsofofthe the experimental
experimental area,
area, thethe UDEC
UDEC modeling
modeling program
program was
was
used to study the developmental behavior of the water-conducting fracture zone during SBM.SBM.
used to study the developmental behavior of the water-conducting fracture zone during The
The construction of the numerical model is illustrated in Figure 11.
construction of the numerical model is illustrated in Figure 11. Both sides of the model were Both sides of the model were
constrained
constrained to to horizontal
horizontal displacements,
displacements, while
while the the bottom
bottom of of the
the model
model was was constrained
constrained to to vertical
vertical
displacements. The Mohr–Coulomb model was used to add an evenly
displacements. The Mohr–Coulomb model was used to add an evenly distributed 0.56 MPa load distributed 0.56 MPa load
on
on the top of the model. The fundamental length and height of the model
the top of the model. The fundamental length and height of the model were 270.00 × 111.00 m, and were 270.00 × 111.00 m,
and
50.0050.00 m margins
m margins were weredugdug
outout
onon each
each side
side ofofthe
themodel.
model.Mesh
Meshrefinement
refinementwas was performed
performed on on the
the
strata
strata in
in the
the vicinity
vicinity ofof the
the coal
coal seam,
seam, taking
taking into
into account
account both
both the
the accuracy
accuracy of of the
the calculations
calculations and
and
computational
computational time. time.
10.00m Red clay
20.00m Siltstone
11.00m Fine sandstone
Mudstone
111.00m
8.00m
17.00m Siltstone
14.00m Medium sandstone
4.00m #3 Coal seam
27.00m Medium sandstone
270.00m
Figure 11.
Figure 11. Mechanical
Mechanical model
model for
for numerical
numerical calculations.
calculations.
To study the state of development of the water-conducting fracture zone with various mining
To study the state of development of the water-conducting fracture zone with various mining
heights, block lengths, and protective coal pillar widths, three simulation cases were designed, as
heights, block lengths, and protective coal pillar widths, three simulation cases were designed,
presented in Table 1. The simulation cases in Table 1 were determined according to the key factors
as presented in Table 1. The simulation cases in Table 1 were determined according to the key
that affect the development of the water-conducting fracture zone during SBM, engineering
factors that affect the development of the water-conducting fracture zone during SBM, engineering
geological conditions of Figure 2, preliminary design parameters of the experimental area in Figure
geological conditions of Figure 2, preliminary design parameters of the experimental area in Figure 3,
3, and related empirical design parameters in SBM. The physical and mechanical parameters of the
and related empirical design parameters in SBM. The physical and mechanical parameters of the coal
coal seam and the various strata in the numerical model were based on rock mechanics data
seam and the various strata in the numerical model were based on rock mechanics data measured in a
measured in a laboratory (as illustrated in Figure 2).
laboratory (as illustrated in Figure 2).
Table 1. Numerical simulation cases.
Case Mining Height/m Block Length/m Width of Protective Coal Pillar/m

1 2.00/2.40/2.80/3.20/3.60/4.00 70.00 10.00
2 4.00 70.00 6.00/10.00/12.00/14.00/18.00/22.00
3 4.00 50.00/55.00/60.00/70.00/75.00/80.00 10.00
Table 1. Numerical simulation cases.
Case Mining Height/m Block Length/m Width of Protective Coal Pillar/m

1 2.00/2.40/2.80/3.20/3.60/4.00 70.00 10.00
2 4.00 70.00 6.00/10.00/12.00/14.00/18.00/22.00
3 4.00 50.00/55.00/60.00/70.00/75.00/80.00 10.00
The results of the numerical simulations are as follows:

(1) HWFZ with varying mining heights
Based on the analysis illustrated in Figure 12, HWFZ increased linearly with mining height (when
the width of the protective coal pillars and the length of the blocks were kept constant). HWFZ was
45.00 m when the mining height was 2.00 m, and it developed to 53.00 m when the mining height
was 4.00 m. Hence, it is shown that increases in mining height promote the development of the
water-conducting fracture zone.
Figure 12. Relationship

Figure 12. Relationshipbetween HWFZand
between HWFZ and mining
mining heights.
heights.
(2) HWFZ with various protective coal pillar widths

(2) HWFZ with various protective coal pillar widths
The analysis in Figure
The analysis 13 indicates
in Figure 13 indicatesthat
thatthe
the width
width ofofthe
the protective
protective coal coal
pillar pillar was inversely
was inversely
correlated with HWFZ
correlated whenwhen
with HWFZ the the
mining
miningheight
heightand blocklength
and block length were
were keptkept constant.
constant. The amplitude
The amplitude
of the curve’s decline is uniform and approximates a straight line. Hence, it is demonstrated that a
of the curve’s decline is uniform and approximates a straight line. Hence, it is demonstrated
that protective
sufficiently a sufficientlycoal
protective
pillar coal pillar
width is width is a prerequisite
a prerequisite for suppressing
for suppressing thethegrowth
growth ofof the
the water-
water-conducting fracture zone.
conducting fracture zone.
The analysis in Figure 13 indicates that the width of the protective coal pillar was inversely
correlated with HWFZ when the mining height and block length were kept constant. The amplitude
of the curve’s decline is uniform and approximates a straight line. Hence, it is demonstrated that a
sufficiently protective
Sustainability coal
2018, 10, 1636 pillar width is a prerequisite for suppressing the growth of the
13 of 20 water-
conducting fracture zone.
Figure
Sustainability 13.
2018, 10,Relationship
x FOR
Figure 13.PEER between
REVIEW
Relationship HWFZ
between HWFZand
andthe widthofof
the width protective
protective coal coal pillars.
pillars. 13 of 19
(3) HWFZ with various block lengths

(3) HWFZ with various block lengths
(3)HWFZ with various block lengths
From Figure 14, it is evident that HWFZ increased with an increase in block length, albeit at a
Fromdecreasing
Figure
From 14,
rateitofis14,
Figure evident
increase, thatthat
it is evident
such HWFZ
that HWFZ
HWFZ increased
increased
appears with
towith
be a an anincrease
increase
logarithmic in in block
block
function length,
length, albeit
of block albeit
at
length. a at a
decreasing rate increased
HWFZ of increase,
decreasing rate ofrapidly such
increase, thatthe
such
when HWFZ
that HWFZ
block appears
appears
length to
ranged be
to be aalogarithmic
betweenlogarithmic
50.00 and function
function
60.00 of of block
m; block it length.
length.
however,
HWFZ increased
HWFZ increased
attained a rapidly
plateaurapidly
when
(and whenthetheblock
stabilized)block length
when the ranged
length between
ranged
block length 50.00 and
between
ranged 60.00
50.00
from m;to
and
60.00 however,
60.00m.
80.00 itm;
attained
however, it
Hence,
a plateau
reasonable (and stabilized)
adjustments of when
block the block
length length
directly ranged
affect the from 60.00
regulation to
of
attained a plateau (and stabilized) when the block length ranged from 60.00 to 80.00 m. Hence, 80.00 m.
overlying Hence,
strata reasonable
movements
adjustments
and HWFZ. of block length directly affect the regulation of overlying strata movements and HWFZ.
reasonable adjustments of block length directly affect the regulation of overlying strata movements
and HWFZ.
Figure
Figure 14.
14. Relationship
Relationship between
between HWFZ
HWFZ and
and the
the length
length of
of block.
block.
(4) The comparison between the results of the mechanical model [40] and numerical simulation
(4) The comparison between the results of the mechanical model [40] and numerical simulation
could be obtained when a stratum was completely broken or the water-conducting fractures
could be obtained when a stratum was completely broken or the water-conducting fractures fully
fully penetrated the stratum in overlying strata, and the results of mechanical model and
penetrated the stratum in overlying strata, and the results of mechanical model and numerical
numerical simulation were very close. While a stratum was partially destroyed or the water-
simulation were very close. While a stratum was partially destroyed or the water-conducting
conducting fractures did not completely pass through the stratum, the results of the mechanical
fractures did not completely pass through the stratum, the results of the mechanical model and
model and numerical simulation exhibit a certain difference. For example, the block length block
(70.00 m) and the width of protective coal pillar (10.00 m) were constant, and when the mining
height was 3.00 m, the mechanical model result was 51.00 m and the numerical simulation result
was about 51.33 m, but while the mining height was 3.00 m, the result of the mechanical model
was 49.00 m and the result of numerical simulation was about 49.33 m. Therefore, based on the
above analysis, when a stratum was partially broken or the water-conducting fractures did not
numerical simulation exhibit a certain difference. For example, the block length block (70.00 m)
and the width of protective coal pillar (10.00 m) were constant, and when the mining height was
3.00 m, the mechanical model result was 51.00 m and the numerical simulation result was about
51.33 m, but while the mining height was 3.00 m, the result of the mechanical model was 49.00 m
and the result of numerical simulation was about 49.33 m. Therefore, based on the above analysis,
when a stratum was partially broken or the water-conducting fractures did not completely pass
through the stratum in overlying strata, there was a certain error in the calculation results of the
mechanical model.
4.3. Prediction of HWFZ Based on Multiple Nonlinear Regression
(1) Multiple nonlinear regression analysis

A multiple nonlinear regression model may be constructed based on the results of the
numerical simulations:
y = α1 x1 + α2 x2 + α3 ln x3 + α0 (10)
Here, let x10 = x1 , x20 = x2 , and x30 = ln x3 ; the nonlinear regression model in Equation (10) may
then be converted into a linear regression model as follows:
y = α1 x10 + α2 x20 + α3 x30 + α0 (11)
The least squares method is then used to obtain the regression coefficients, α0 , α1 , α2 , and α3 ,
as illustrated below:
∑ (yi − ŷi )2 = ∑
2
f ( xi0 ) = 0
yi − α0 − α1 x1i 0
− α2 x2i 0
− α3 x3i = min (12)
In Equation (12), x1i 0 , x 0 , and x 0 are independent variables, while y is a dependent variable.
2i 3i i
As both the sets of variables are known observables, one may then solve the regression coefficients α0 ,
α1 , α2 , and α3 by setting their first derivatives as 0. This yields the following:

 K11 α1 + K12 α2 + K13 α3 = K1y

K21 α1 + K22 α2 + K23 α3 = K2y (13)

 K α +K α +K α = K
31 1 32 2 33 3 3y
Here, it is revealed in Equation (13) that Kij = K ji = ∑ ( xij0 − xi0 )( xij0 − x 0j ) and
Kiy = ∑ ( xij0 − xi0 )(yi − yi ).
As Ki1 , Ki2 , Ki3 , and Kiy (i = 1, 2, 3) are already known, xij0 , yi , x 0j , xi0 and yi (i = 1, 2, 3) are also
known. Hence, there are three equations for the three unknown regression coefficients, α0 , α1 , α2 , and α3 .
These three unknowns may then be solved via either elementary matrix operations or the calculation
of determinants; α0 may be solved using the values of α0 , α1 , α2 , and α3 . The accuracy of the obtained 2
∑ (ŷi −y)
regression equation may be determined using a correlation coefficient R R2 (y, 1, 2, 3, 4) = 2 .
∑ ( yi − y )
The more closely the value of R approaches 1, the more reliable the fit of the regression equation.
(2) Construction of the model for predicting HWFZ
Based on the simulation results in Section 4.2. and the aforementioned procedure, SPSS 19.0 was
used to perform nonlinear regression analyses on the relationships between HWFZ and mining height,
the block length, and the width of the protective coal pillars (in Figures 12–14, respectively). The model
equation for predicting HWFZ is:
H = 35.03 ln l1 − 0.51l2 + 3.48hc − 105.04 (14)

The correlation coefficient of the regression model’s fit is illustrated in Table 2.
Table 2. Correlation coefficient of the regression model’s fit.
R R2
0.97 0.93
Table 2 reveals that the fit coefficient of the regression model is R2 = 0.93, which indicates an
excellent level of fit and demonstrates that the equation is statistically significant. The construction
of this predictive regression model enables accurate predictions for this type of geological work
under varying sets of mining parameters and conditions (mining height, protective coal pillar width,
and block length), thus providing a form of on-site guidance that can, to an extent, inform the design
of working face layouts and key mining parameters. In addition, the application of this system for
predicting HWFZ in SBM is likely to have profound significance in the prediction of HWFZ during
the recovery of coal pillars in varied geological environments, and it will be of practical value for the
protection of ecological environments, ensuring adequate resource utilization, and China’s sustainable
Sustainability 2018,
development 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
strategies. 15 of 19
5.5.Practical
PracticalApplications
Applications
5.1.
5.1.Methods
Methodsfor
forMonitoring
MonitoringHWFZ
HWFZ
During
DuringSBMSBMrecovery,
recovery,HWFZ
HWFZwere weremeasured
measuredthrough
throughlosses
lossesinindrilling
drillingfluid,
fluid,integrity
integrityofofdrilled
drilled
cores,
cores,and
andthe
thetomography
tomographyof ofdrilling
drillingtelevision
televisionsystem
systemininbored
boredholes.
holes.After
Afterthe
theworking
workingface
facewas
was
mined-out,
mined-out,twotwoobservation
observationboreholes
boreholes(D1(D1and
andD2)
D2)were
wereinstalled
installedabove
abovethetheworking
workingfacefaceto
tomeasure
measure
HWFZ.
HWFZ.The Thelayout
layoutofofthe
theboreholes
boreholeswaswasasasillustrated
illustratedin
inFigures
Figures33andand15;
15;boreholes
boreholesD1 D1and
andD2D2lie
liein
in
two
twocentral
centralpositions
positionsabove
abovethe
theworking
workingface
faceatat35.00
35.00mmand
and115.00
115.00m, m, respectively,
respectively,from
fromthe
thestarting
starting
cut.
cut.The
Thedepth
depthof ofthese
theseboreholes
boreholeswaswas114.00
114.00m, m,with
withthe
thefinal
finaldrilled
drilledstratum
stratumbeing
beingthe
thefloor
floorstratum
stratum
of
ofthe
thecoal
coalseam;
seam;the
theloss
lossof
ofwashing
washingfluid
fluidwas
wasmonitored
monitoredduring
duringthe
theborehole
boreholedrilling
drillingprocess.
process.
D1 D2
0 0
Loose layer
20.00 20.00
Aquifer
40.00 40.00
Depth/m
60.00 60.00
Bedrock Direction of advance
80.00 80.00
Starting cut Protective
100.00 coal pillar Coal seam 100.00
120.00 120.00
Experimental working face in SBM
140.00 140.00
Figure15.
Figure 15.Position
Positionand
andlayout
layoutof
ofthe
theaquifer
aquiferand
andboreholes.
boreholes.
5.2.Analysis
5.2. Analysisofofthe
theMonitoring
MonitoringData
Data
Theobserved
The observedvariations
variationsininwashing
washingfluid
fluidlosses
lossesduring
duringthe
thedrilling
drillingof
ofD1
D1and
andD2
D2arearepresented
presentedin
in
Figure16,
Figure 16,and
andimages
imagesof ofthe
thedrilling
drillingtelevision
televisionsystem
systemare
areshown
shownininFigures
Figures1717and
and18.
18.When
Whenthethebore
bore
depth of D1 reached 62.42 m, the loss in washing fluid increased from 0.27 to 1.93 m3 3/h. While there
depth of D1 reached 62.42 m, the loss in washing fluid increased from 0.27 to 1.93 m /h. While there
was an increase in the loss of washing fluid, the magnitude of this increase was relatively marginal, and
the development of layered cracks in the drilled cores was relatively intact. Figure 17a shows an image
from the drilling television system at the bore depth of 58.02 m, with morphological characteristics of
rock strata being relatively complete. As the drilling depth increased, the loss of washing fluid increased
to 4.03 m3/h, which was a relatively large increase in loss. The recovery rate of the drilled cores was less
was an increase in the loss of washing fluid, the magnitude of this increase was relatively marginal,
and the development of layered cracks in the drilled cores was relatively intact. Figure 17a shows
an image from the drilling television system at the bore depth of 58.02 m, with morphological
characteristics of rock strata being relatively complete. As the drilling depth increased, the loss
of washing fluid increased to 4.03 m3 /h, which was a relatively large increase in loss. The recovery
rate of the drilled cores was less than 50%, and the cracks in the cores were more developed and
exhibited multiple cracks with narrow widths. An image of the top boundary of HWFZ is shown in
Figure 17b. The first vertical fracture appeared at 62.42 m in borehole D1. The loss of washing fluid
fluctuated within a marginal range as the drilling depth continued to increase, and the cores were
more shattered. Figure 17c shows that the density of the vertical fractures increased with bore depth.
Sustainability
Hence,
Sustainability 2018, 10,x xFOR
it is10,
2018, FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
demonstrated REVIEW
that D1 measured an HWFZ of 47.98 m. 16ofof1919
16
Figure
Figure 16.Relationship
16.
Figure Relationship
16. between
between
Relationship borehole
borehole
between depthand
boreholedepth
depth andloss
loss
loss ofof
of washing
washing
washing fluid.
fluid.
fluid.
57.86m 62.34m 70.82m
57.94m 62.42m 70.90m
58.02m 62.50m 70.98m
58.10m 62.58m 71.06m
58.18m 62.66m First vertical 71.14m
58.26m 62.74m fracture 71.22m
58.34m 62.82m 71.30m
(a)
(a) (b)
(b) (c)
(c)
Figure
Figure 17.Image
17.
Figure Image ofofdrilling
17. Image drilling television
television
of drilling system
system
television inin
system borehole
borehole
in D1.(a)
boreholeD1.
D1. (a)No
(a) Nofracture;
No fracture;
fracture; (b)
(b)
(b) First
First
First vertical
vertical
vertical fracture;
fracture;
fracture;
(c)Fractured
(c) Fractured zone.
zone.
(c) Fractured zone.
55.78m 60.26m 67.94m
55.86m 60.34m 68.02m
55.94m 60.42m 68.10m
56.02m 60.50m 68.18m
56.10m 60.58m 68.26m
56.26m 60.74m fracture 68.42m
(a)
(a) (b)
(b) (c)
(c)
Figure18.
Figure 18.Image
Imageofofdrilling
drillingtelevision
televisionsystem
systemininborehole
boreholeD2.
D2.(a)
(a)No
Nofracture;
fracture;(b)
(b)First
Firstvertical
verticalfracture;
fracture;
58.34m 62.82m 71.30m
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 17. Image of drilling television system in borehole D1. (a) No fracture; (b) First vertical fracture;
(c) Fractured zone.
55.78m 60.26m 67.94m
55.86m 60.34m 68.02m
55.94m 60.42m 68.10m
56.02m 60.50m 68.18m
56.10m 60.58m 68.26m
56.26m 60.74m fracture 68.42m
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 18. Image

Figure of drilling
18. Image television
of drilling system
television ininborehole
system boreholeD2.
D2. (a)
(a) No fracture;(b)
No fracture; (b)First
First vertical
vertical fracture;
fracture;
(c) Fractured zone.
(c) Fractured zone.
WhenWhen the drilling depth

the drilling of D2
depth of D2reached
reached60.34
60.34m,m,the
the loss in washing
loss in washingfluid
fluidincreased
increased from
from 0.140.14
to to
2.27 m2.27
3/h, and
3 the recovery rate of the drilled cores was approximately 78%. The rock
m /h, and the recovery rate of the drilled cores was approximately 78%. The rock cores displayed cores displayed
developments
developmentsof layered cracks
of layered with
cracks narrow
with narrowwidths
widthsand
and did not
notpresent
presentany
anydistinct
distinct cracks.
cracks. TheThe image
image
at theatbore
the bore
depth depth of 56.02
of 56.02 m ismshown
is shown inin Figure18a,
Figure 18a,the
the rock
rock strata
stratadid
didnot
nothave
have any fractures,
any andand
fractures, the the
morphological characteristics were complete. As the drilling depth continued
morphological characteristics were complete. As the drilling depth continued to increase, the lossto increase, the loss in in
washing fluid increased to 4.58 m 3 /h, and the fluctuations in these losses were relatively large from
washing fluid increased to 4.58 m3/h, and the fluctuations in these losses were relatively large from
observations
observations of the of recovered
the recovered cores,
cores, it itwas
wasdetermined
determined that
that the
thecores
coreswere
were shattered,
shattered,as shown
as shown in in
Figure 18b, and there was an obvious vertical fracture at a bore depth of 60.34 m for the first time.
Figure 18b, and there was an obvious vertical fracture at a bore depth of 60.34 m for the first time. The
The fluctuations in washing fluid loss became smaller as the drilling depth continued to increase,
fluctuations in washing fluid loss became smaller as the drilling depth continued to increase, and the
and the broken range of the cores was obviously increased. As can be seen in Figure 18c, the density
broken range
of the of the
vertical cores was
fractures obviously
and the increased.
broken range of rockAs canincreased
strata be seen in Figure
with 18c, the
bore depth. density
Hence, of the
it was
vertical fracturesthat
determined andthethepeakbroken
of therange of rock strata
water-conducting increased
fracture zone waswith
at abore
depth depth. Hence, it was
of approximately
60.34 m, which corresponds to a height of 50.06 m of the water-conducting fracture zone affected
by mining.
5.3. Comparison between the Analyses of HWFZ

As shown in Table 3, the field-measured data indicates that HWFZ in the SBM working face is
approximately 49 m and that it has not reached the aquifer. These results thus indicate that the HMP
standard’s prediction is incompatible with the measured results, while the results of the mechanical
model proposed in this study (50.30 m) and the regression prediction model (52.58 m) reasonably fit
field measurements. This observation verifies that the regression prediction model is highly viable and
valuable as a source of guidance, and also establishes the accuracy of the mechanical model.
Table 3. Comparison between the analyses of HWFZ.
Measured Result Result Predicted by the Calculation of

Prediction by this Study
HWFZ D1 D2 HMP Standard Mechanical Analysis
47.98 m 50.06 m 75.00 m 50.30 m 52.58 m
6. Conclusions
(1) This study proposes the SBM process for recovering irregular blocks of coal and coal pillars.
Based on the characteristics of overlying strata displacements of SBM, the key factors that affect the
development of the water-conducting fracture zone and the theory of beams on elastic foundations,
a mechanical model for calculating HWFZ in SBM was constructed, and an HWFZ of 50.30 m in
the working face of the experimental area was calculated; this result varied substantially from the
prediction of the HMP standard (75.50 m). This reveals that the empirical equation in the HMP
standard is not suitable for predicting HWFZ in SBM.
(2) UDEC was used to perform simulation analyses on the various factors that determine
HWFZ, and the simulations indicated that HWFZ increased linearly with an increase in mining height,
increased logarithmically with an increase in the block length of the coal seam, and decreased linearly
with an increase in the width of the protective coal pillars.
(3) SPSS was used to perform nonlinear regression analyses to obtain an equation for predicting
HWFZ in SBM, i.e., H = 35.03 ln l1 − 0.51 l2 + 3.48 hc − 105.04. On-site measurements indicated
that the mined-out working face in the experimental area had an HWFZ of approximately 49 m,
which is comparable to the prediction of the regression model (52.58 m) and the calculated result of the
mechanical model (50.30 m). This result verifies the reliability of the regression model proposed in this
study and also establishes the accuracy of the mechanical model. The construction of this prediction
system will allow for accurate predictions of HWFZ in overlying strata of SBM, which has significant
implications for the rational utilization of mining resources and the protection of water resources and
ecological environments.
Author Contributions: Y.Z., S.C., and L.L. conducted a thorough literature search. Y.Z. drafted the manuscript.
R.G. and S.G. reviewed the final paper and made important suggestions and recommendations for paper revision.
Acknowledgments: This work was financially sponsored by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities (2018BSCXC30), and Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province
(the project is under the charge of Y.Z.).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Fan, G.W. Mechanism and Engineering Practice on Mutual Response between Underground Mining of
Shallow Coal Seam and Protection of Fragile Ecological Environment. Ph.D. Thesis, China University of
Mining & Technology, Xuzhou, China, 2014.
2. Ju, J.F.; Xu, J.L. Surface stepped subsidence related to top-coal caving longwall mining of extremely thick
coal seam under shallow cover. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2015, 78, 27–35. [CrossRef]
3. Cui, M.X. Annual Report on China Energy Development, 1st ed.; Social Sciences Academic Press: Beijing,
China, 2008.
4. Xing, P.W.; Song, X.M.; Fu, Y.P. Study on similar simulation of the roof strata movement laws of the large
mining height workface in shallow coal seam. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Structures and Building Materials, Hangzhou, China, 10 March 2012.
5. Zhang, D.S.; Fan, G.W.; Liu, Y.D.; Ma, L.Q. Field trials of aquifer protection in longwall mining of shallow
coal seams in China. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2010, 47, 908–914. [CrossRef]
6. Zhang, D.S.; Fan, G.W.; Ma, L.Q.; Wang, X.F. Aquifer protection during longwall mining of shallow coal
seams: A case study in the Shendong coalfield of China. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2011, 86, 190–196. [CrossRef]
7. Miao, X.X.; Chen, R.H.; Bai, H.B. Fundamental concepts and mechanical analysis of water-resisting key
strata in water-preserved mining. J. China Coal Soc. 2007, 32, 562–564.
8. Miao, X.X.; Wang, A.; Sun, Y.J.; Wang, L.G.; Pu, H. Research on basic theory of mining with water resources
protection and its application to arid and semi-arid mining areas. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 2009, 28, 217–227.
9. Fan, L.M.; Zhang, X.T.; Xiang, M.X.; Zhang, H.Q.; Shen, T.; Lin, P.X. Characteristics of ground fissure
development in high intensity mining area of shallow seam in Yushenfu coal field. J. China Coal Soc. 2015, 40,
1442–1447.
10. Fan, L.M.; Ma, X.D.; Ji, R.J. Progress in engineering practice of water-preserved coal mining in western
eco-environment frangible area. J. China Coal Soc. 2015, 40, 1711–1717.
11. Liu, H.Z. Study on the Distribution Characteristics and the Exploration and Development Prospect of Coal
Resource of China. Ph.D. Thesis, China University of Geosciences, Beijing, China, 2013.
12. Ye, G.X.; Jiang, F.X.; Liu, P.L.; Feng, Z.Q.; Wang, D.Z. Design and optimization of efficient mining technology
in boundary coal recovery. J. Univ. Sci. Technol. B 2007, 29, 655–659.
13. Zhang, N.H. Study on the Theory and Practice about Mechanized Mining Technology of Bound Coal at
Irregular Block Section. Master’s Thesis, China University of Mining & Technology, Xuzhou, China, 2011.
14. Zhou, M.P. Research on Continuous Mining Methods and Rock Control Technology. Ph.D. Thesis, China
University of Mining & Technology, Xuzhou, China, 2014.
15. Cao, S.G.; Cao, Y.; Jiang, H.J. Research on catastrophe instability mechanism of section coal pillars in block
mining. J. Min. Saf. Eng. 2014, 31, 908–913.
16. Zhou, M.P.; Cao, S.G.; Jiang, X.J. The law of rock pressure in the stope with blocking mining by the continuous
miner. J. Min. Saf. Eng. 2014, 31, 413–417.
17. Booth, C.J. Strata-movement concepts and the hydrogeological impact of underground coal mining.
Groundwater 1986, 24, 507–515. [CrossRef]
18. Palchik, V. Influence of physical characteristics of weak rock mass on height of caved zone over abandoned
subsurface coal mines. Environ. Geol. 2002, 42, 92–101. [CrossRef]
19. Zhang, J.C.; Shen, B.H. Coal mining under aquifers in China: A case study. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2004,
41, 629–639. [CrossRef]
20. Zhang, W.; Zhang, D.S.; Wu, L.X.; Wang, H.Z. On-site radon detection of mining-induced fractures from
overlying strata to the surface: A case study of the Baoshan coal mine in China. Energies 2014, 7, 8483–8507.
[CrossRef]
21. Elsworth, D.; Liu, J.S. The influence of mining induced subsidence on groundwater resources. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 1995, 8, 141–148.
22. Adams, R.; Younger, P.L. A strategy for modeling ground water rebound in abandoned deep mine systems.
Groundwater 2001, 39, 249–261. [CrossRef]
23. Light, D.D.M.; Donovan, J.J. Mine-water flow between contiguous flooded underground coal mines with
hydraulically compromised barriers. Environ. Eng. Geosci. 2015, 21, 147–164. [CrossRef]
24. National Coal administration of China. Hydrogeological Procedures for Mines, 1st ed.; China Coal Industry
Publishing House: Beijing, China, 1984.
25. Li, X.Q.; Ren, S.Z. Classification of hydro-geological conditions in Chinese coal mines. J. China Coal Soc. 1992,
17, 89–96.
26. Huang, Q.X. Ground pressure behavior and definition of shallow coal seams. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 2009,
28, 217–227.
27. Peng, S.S. Longwall Mining, 1st ed.; Science Press: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2006.
28. Palchik, V. Formation of fractured zones in overburden due to longwall mining. Environ. Geol. 2003, 44,
28–38.
29. Qian, M.G.; Miao, X.X.; Xu, J.L. Key Strata Theory of Strata Control, 1st ed.; China University of Mining &
Technology Press: Xuzhou, China, 2003.
30. Chen, L.; Feng, X.; Xie, W.; Zeng, W.; Zheng, Z. Using a fluid–solid coupled numerical simulation to
determine a suitable size for barrier pillars when mining shallow coal seams beneath an unconsolidated,
confined aquifer. Mine Water Environ. 2016, 36, 1–11. [CrossRef]
31. Hoek, E.; Brown, E.T. Underground Excavations in Rocks, 1st ed.; Institution of Mining and Metallurgy: London,
UK, 1980; pp. 382–395.
32. Chen, J.; Du, J.P.; Zhang, W.S.; Zhang, J.X. An elastic base beam model of overlying strata movement during
coal mining with gangue back-filling. J. China Univ. Min. Technol. 2012, 41, 14–19.
33. He, F.L.; Wang, X.M.; Xie, R.S. study on elastic foundation beam model of cracked coal seam roadway roof
with ultra large section. Coal Sci. Technol. 2014, 42, 34–36.
34. Selvadurai, A.P.S. Elastic Analysis of Soil-Foundation Interaction, 1st ed.; Elsevier Scientific Publish: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 1979.
35. Long, Y.Q. Computation of Elastically Supported Beams, 1st ed.; People’s Education Press: Beijing, China, 1981.
36. Yang, X.X. The feature of foundation pressure on winkler foundation beam with one fixed end and its
application. Eng. Mech. 2006, 23, 76–79.
37. Deng, X.J.; Zhang, J.X.; Huang, P.; Zhang, Q.; Hao, X.F. Roof movement characteristics in extra thick coal
seam mining with the upward slicing filling technology. China Coal Soc. 2015, 40, 994–1000.
38. Wang, F.T.; Tu, S.H.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, Y.W.; Bai, Q.S. Evolution mechanism of water-flowing zones and
control technology for longwall mining in shallow coal seams beneath gully topography. Environ. Earth Sci.
2016, 75, 1309. [CrossRef]
39. Du, F.; Gao, R. Development patterns of fractured water-conducting zones in longwall mining of thick coal
seams—A case study on safe mining under the Zhuozhang river. Energies 2017, 10, 1856. [CrossRef]
40. Zhang, Y.; Cao, S.G.; Lan, L.X.; Gao, R.; Yan, H. Analysis of Development Pattern of a Water-Flowing Fissure
Zone in Shortwall Block Mining. Energies 2017, 10, 734. [CrossRef]
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Rare Earth Elements Profile

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Rare Earth Elements Profile

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1636; doi:10.3390/su10051636 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

an exacerbation of desertification [5–10] (see Figure 1 [11]). Furthermore, significant quantities of

Gansu Inner Monglia

Coal Resources Ningxia

mining operations, and the protection of ecological environments.

Figure Medium sandstone

2.2. SBM Processes

A(1) The technical

Mian haulage roadway

Track haulage roadway

3.1. Characteristics of Overlying Strata Damage in SBM

Longwall mining Coal seam

Longwall mining Coal seam

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19

(1) Mining height

(1) Construction of a mechanical model for calculating HWFZ

q3(i) q3(i) q3(i)

Coal seam Protective coal pillar Goaf

Figure 8. Schematic of the basic environmental stresses in SBM.

q3(i) q3(i) q3(i) q3(i)

Figure 9. Mechanical model for an arbitrary stratum in SBM.

In this equation, kc is the 1elastic1 1

3.4. Calculating of HWFZ

10.00m Red clay

27.00m Medium sandstone

Case Mining Height/m Block Length/m Width of Protective Coal Pillar/m

Table 1. Numerical simulation cases.

Case Mining Height/m Block Length/m Width of Protective Coal Pillar/m

The results of the numerical simulations are as follows:

Figure 12. Relationship

(2) HWFZ with various protective coal pillar widths

conducting fracture zone.

(3) HWFZ with various block lengths

4.3. Prediction of HWFZ Based on Multiple Nonlinear Regression

(1) Multiple nonlinear regression analysis

y = α1 x10 + α2 x20 + α3 x30 + α0 (11)

H = 35.03 ln l1 − 0.51l2 + 3.48hc − 105.04 (14)

The correlation coefficient of the regression model’s fit is illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2. Correlation coefficient of the regression model’s fit.

57.86m 62.34m 70.82m

57.94m 62.42m 70.90m

58.02m 62.50m 70.98m

58.10m 62.58m 71.06m

58.18m 62.66m First vertical 71.14m

58.26m 62.74m fracture 71.22m

58.34m 62.82m 71.30m

55.78m 60.26m 67.94m

55.86m 60.34m 68.02m

55.94m 60.42m 68.10m

56.02m 60.50m 68.18m

56.10m 60.58m 68.26m

56.18m 60.66m First vertical 68.34m

56.26m 60.74m fracture 68.42m

(a) (b) (c)

55.78m 60.26m 67.94m

55.86m 60.34m 68.02m

55.94m 60.42m 68.10m

56.02m 60.50m 68.18m

56.10m 60.58m 68.26m

56.18m 60.66m First vertical 68.34m

56.26m 60.74m fracture 68.42m

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 18. Image